Society clear saw the benefits of Patriarchy, and due to this fact, made laws and customs that would bind the female kinship system under the control of the male kinship system, in order to assure the benefits of the most successful model: Patriarchy.Society thereby controlled not only the sexuality of the woman in which to accomplish this, but gave the Father purpose.To do this, he thereby had complete unfettered control over his family, which was his ‘property’, legally defined as ‘chattel’.

-----------

This issue of women and children being ‘property’ is greatly contested by the modern feminist movement.In fact, they immediately liken this issue as being similar in nature as to being ‘owned’ like a slave or an animal.This vexatious assumption posed by the modern feminist, although correct in label is wrong in thesis.For in reality, when the state assumes these wives and children under it’s doctrine of Parens Patriæ, you better believe they are in fact property, (ergo: chattels), under the states law and domain...The feminist however; don’t make a peep about that reality...The fact is, that somebody owns our children…but we now live in a society mulct at that recognition, and few are afraid to rise up—and claim what is by law and by nature their own legacy.Instead, they meekly mouth the state provided pabulum, that they will “take responsibility”and act “in the best interests of the child” to aid in their own destruction, to the delight of feminists and communists and elites whom continually feed off of this self denial and self-imposed destruction.

However, when the males enforce their natural rights to their own children and property, well, then they are viewed as being oppressive.Somehow, the more tyrannical state; is not!(When they seize and claim children in “the child’s best interests).Of course the common law reasoning for allowing the Male to ‘own’ both his wife and children stemmed not so much from a need to control, but rather of one to protect and be responsible for his own family..Giving the Father ‘ownership’ of both his wife and his children allowed him to legally bind his family and protect his family from unwanted intrusion or threat.Not only that: Fathers don’t need state subsidy to raise their children—and this is factually, the real threat against the modern state.Clearly, our Forefathers understood that the “Village” could not take care of people as well as Fathers and Families could take care of the village.

Ah well...read up, so we can better understand how things will become when Hillary "It Takes A Village" is the next President of the US of A...

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Four town employees with 46 years of service between them were fired, in part for gossiping and discussing rumors of an improper relationship between the town administrator and another employee that Hooksett residents now agree were not true.

The administrator complained, and after an investigation the town council fired the women, finding, "Gossip, whispering, and an unfriendly environment are causing poor morale and interfering with the efficient performance of town business."

"When I was given my termination papers, I just looked at the gentlemen that were present in the room and I said, 'You've got to be kidding!'" said fired worker Sandy Piper, who insisted her comments weren't out of line. "We discussed it on a lunch break, and then it ended."

"It kind of sort of was, 'Oh did you hear that too,'" said Michelle Bonsteel, Piper's fired co-worker.

Gossip is ingrained in American culture, from the elementary school playground to the office water cooler. But Tory Johnson, "Good Morning America's" workplace contributor, said people should be careful about what they say when they're on the clock.

"Free speech only goes so far," Johnson said. "An employer definitely has the right to defend his reputation."

In Hooksett the four firings are ironically now the talk of the town. But for the women out of work, the controversy is not a matter of idle chatter -- they want to get back to work.

"I did love my job. And do I want to return? Absolutely," Piper said.

Lawyers for the Town Council of Hooksett told ABC News they have "no comment" at this time, but there could be a decision this week on whether to reinstate some or all of the women.

The Boys Project is a website dedicated to the issues of how men are falling behind in women when it comes to education.

THE "BOY CRISIS"

Since the late 1970's, young women have soared in college attendance while young men have stagnated. Young men's literacy is declining. Many young men are disengaging from school. Young men are less likely to be valedictorians, to be on the honor roll, and to be active in organizations like student government. Young men are more likely to get D's and F's, to be suspended or expelled from school, to drop out of school, and to commit suicide.

We are losing young boys to a sense of failure that comes from schooling poorly adapted to their needs. We are losing adolescent males to the depression that comes from feeling neither needed nor respected. We are losing young men to life tracks that include neither college nor any other energetic endeavor.

A large, sullen, poorly educated group of men will not keep the nation vital in the twenty-first century. The nation needs the energy, initiative, and ambition of its young men as well as its young women.

It's a pretty good website - but as usual, it negelects - or perhaps is simply ignorant of - the most important factor in a generation of boys growing up without motivation, long term goals or hopeful of the future...the divorce/single-mother epidemic engendered by no-fault divorce and the changing of social norms that make illegitimate birth and co-habitation accepted and even promoted by the mainstream have contributed to a large swathe of males raised in households without a positive male influence in their lives - followed by spending their formative years in schools that are largely run by women for girls with a feminized agenda on non-competition and worrying about precious "self-esteem."

Do we really need any more proof that feminism has truly warped our culture and is having a long term effect on how boys are raised in this country? Check out a few choice statistics from The Boys Project:

For every 100 girl babies born there are 105 boy babies born.For every 100 girls suspended from public elementary and secondary schools 250 boys are suspended.

For every 100 girls expelled from public elementary and secondary schools 335 boys are expelled.

For every 100 girls diagnosed with a learning disability 276 boys are diagnosed with a learning disability.

For every 100 girls diagnosed with emotional disturbance 324 boys are diagnosed with emotional disturbance

For every 100 women enrolled in college there are 77 men enrolled.

For every 100 American women who earn an associateís degree from college 67 American men earn the same degree.

For every 100 American women who earn a bachelorís degree from college 73 American men earn a bachelorís degree.

For every 100 American women who earn a masterís degree from college 62 American men earn the same degree.

For every 100 American women who earn a doctor's degree from college 92 American men earn the same degree.

For every 100 females ages 15 to 19 that commit suicide 549 males in the same range kill themselves.

For every 100 females ages 20 to 24 that commit suicide 624 males of the same age kill themselves.

For every 100 girls ages 15 to 17 in correctional facilities there are 837 boys behind bars.

For every 100 women ages 18 to 21 in correctional facilities there are 1430 men behind bars.

For every 100 women ages 22 to 24 in correctional facilities there are 1448 men in correctional facilities.

The Matriarchy has done it's dirty work, and it is our boys who are paying the price.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Dr. Laura, the talk radio show host that is a champion of strengthening marriages and families by calling women out on their selfish behavior has recently ruffled more than a few feathers the other day while doing a live show in Utah.

From her blog:

On Friday, May 11th, I was in Salt Lake City doing my radio program at Fort Douglas to honor Military Moms for Mother’s Day. Just before the three-hour live broadcast, I was interviewed by Matthew D. LaPlante for the Salt Lake Tribune; ostensibly about Military Moms. I don’t remember him asking me even one question about that.

His article was published the next day with the headline, “Dr. Laura to G.I. wives: No Whining.” Although this interview went over one-half hour, and I covered a wide range of subjects pertinent to military families and the war, he chose a comment, one that I’ve made before many times on the air, to make the primary focus of his article - and, he took it out of the entire context of my remarks.

I am so deeply sad and disappointed that this out of context comment appears to have caused hurt and pain to military spouses - people that I’ve spent so much time helping. I am frustrated that people who haven’t heard my program would be misled as to my attitude and intent.

I am a military mom. I whine to my husband every day about how scared I am for my son and how helpless I feel to protect his body and soul. However, I never whine to my son when he is able to call between missions.

That, and only that, is my point. Of course military spouses endure fear and domestic burdens. Of course they often need emotional support and practical assistance. As I said to the reporter, and many times on my program, family services, clergy, family, friends, and the camaraderie of other military spouses are available outlets. However, burdening one’s warrior spouse with your fears, upsets, loneliness, etc., is a huge mistake as it demoralizes the warrior and thereby undermines their concentration while they are in life-death situations.

It's funny that so many people read that article written by that Salt Lake reporter and sent a bunch of letters expressing outrage at Dr. Laura. However, even taking Dr. Laura's point out of context like the reporter did, still doesn't make what she said reprehensible at all...she speaks the truth!

It is also true that when a soldier is in combat, his family must remember that anything they are going through needs to be perceived in the context of the fact that they are not dodging bullets and tip-toeing around IEDs. I know that when I get upset about things in my life, I think about my son and what he is facing that he can’t walk away from, then I have a cup of coffee and go for a relaxing sail. It puts me back into a less “poor me” perspective. And that is what I have conveyed to millions of folks on my radio program.

It is unfortunate that so many women are raised in our culture to be so self-centered and selfish to the point that they have no consideration to their husband and the father of their children serving in a combat zone and may very well be killed, can't control themselves and have to vent and complain and unload their petty burden's of day to day life on their husbands...who oftentimes look forward to that call back home as an escape from the stress and insanity of a war zone.

Reminders like the one issued by Dr. Laura are VITAL. A demoralized soldier who is depressed or upset by a wife's phone call is much more likely to have a harder time dealing with the stress of combat...and this doesn't even come close to talking about the absolutely disgusting skanks who tell the soldiers serving that they are leaving them or going off with "Jody." Women who do that to a soldier in a combat role are just about the lowest form of female skankhood in my book.

Ladies, if you have a man fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, ALWAYS focus on inspiring and uplifting his morale when you do get a chance to communicate with him. Give him something to fight hard to get back to, and you may in fact increase his chances (however slightly) of coming back to you. As Dr. Laura said (and I see nothing wrong with it, even when it is taken out of context!): NO WHINING!

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

It points out when:

America's divorce rate began climbing in the late 1960s and skyrocketed during the '70s and early '80s, as virtually every state adopted no-fault divorce laws. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981.

But since then it's dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That's the lowest rate since 1970.

What's fueling that decline? According to 20 scholars, marriage- promotion experts and divorce lawyers consulted by The Associated Press, a combination of things.

This article looks for a variety of explanations for this but makes only a passing mention at what is I suspect the largest cause for this:

The number of couples who live together without marrying has increased tenfold since 1960; the marriage rate has dropped by nearly 30 percent in past 25 years; and Americans are waiting about five years longer to marry than they did in 1970.

Less marriages ocurring, less divorces naturally follow.

But the article than goes on to a series of different "explanations" while completley missing the reality: with a few exceptions, most marriages occur when a man proposes to a woman (or is pressured into it by a woman via pregnancy or familial-social pressure).

So why are men increasingly refusing to propose enmasse like they used to? The MRA aware know why: the casualties of misandrist divorce laws are everywhere for young men to see, and the increased socialism results in inflation and the requirement that young people need to spend years to attain educations to have enough money to responsibly start families, and finally the changing of societies morals that make attachment free sex available to men (why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?) have all combined to cause a large reduction in marriages or a significant delay in when men willing to get married.

MGTOW is becoming mainstream, but the feminist media either can't or won't recognize it.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

In what legal experts are calling a precedent, a three-judge panel of the state Superior Court has ruled that a York County man must pay child support for two children of a lesbian couple for whom he acted as a sperm donor.

Men, you have just been served notice: DO NOT DONATE OR SELL YOUR SPERM.

Jodilynn Jacob and Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob were a couple who lived in York County and who had undergone a commitment ceremony in Pittsburgh and a civil union in Vermont.

The couple cared for four children, two of whom were adopted nephews of Jacob's and the other two whom she had with Carl Frampton, a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's who had agreed to act as a sperm donor. Frampton is also named as an appellant in the case.

In February 2006 Jacob and Shultz-Jacob separated, with Jacob moving from York County to Dauphin County. The separation was followed by Shultz-Jacob asking a York County judge for full legal and physical custody of all four children.

Later, Jacob asked a Dauphin County judge for child support for two of the children from Shultz-Jacob, arguing that Frampton was "essentially a third parent" to two of the children. Frampton died of a stroke earlier this year.

Kelly noted in his opinion that Frampton had held himself out as a stepparent to the children by being present at the birth of one of the children, contributing "in excess of $13,000" over the last four years, buying toys and borring money to obtain a vehicle in which to transport the children.

"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond merely biological," wrote the judge.

In other words, even if you "donated" your sperm as a FAVOR, and than HELP OUT A FRIEND, this Lesbian twit can than turn around and USE THAT AGAINST YOU to take you for your money! Once again Gentlemen, DO NOT DONATE OR SELL YOUR SPERM. EVER.

That is, unless you don't actually mind paying 18 years of child support to a self-centered, artifically-inseminated, lesbian bitch!

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

This is pure, unadulterated feminist propaganda, meant to appeal to the narcisstic, self-centered mentality of the typical American entitlement princess...and it's intent is to further the destruction of the nuclear family.

First of all, this study makes it's most idiotic error based on the assumption that the average wage for a cook, a laundry machine operator, a van driver, a facilitis manager, a computer operator, psychologist etc. is a realistic basis to compute the jobs a stay-at-home mother does.

Of course, this doesn't even consider the following: the average wages for these jobs are what workers are paid to do those jobs for a complete shift of work! Stay at home moms at most cook 3 meals a day for 1-4+ people (depending on the size of her family, of course), while professional cooks will spend 8 hours in a restaurant kitchen cooking for up to hundreds of people a day. Same goes for "laundry machine operator."

In fact...who gets paid to operate a laundry machine the likes of which households have? The only "laundry machine operators" that do that sort of job full time are the folks that run machines for large hotels or something similar...and again, they are usually operating these machines for 8 hours at a time, doing laundry for hundreds of rooms to make that wage.

As for the other "jobs?" Computer Operator? Are you fucking kidding me? Surfing the Internet to find a recipe or read up on the latest celebrity gossip or carrying on an internet affair on MySpace is considered a job they should be paid for?

Psychologist? Psychologists go to school for years to attain a degree to work as a full time psychologist to build up a practice that involves seeing 8 or more patients a day to make the kind of average pay this so-called report undoubtedly used in this garbage of a "calculation."

As for "Chief Executive Officer," the claim to that job title for ANY housewife strains credulity. CEO's make executive decisions that direct an entire organization of people that affect every facet of the companies actions. Although it's true that a housewife can and does make such decisions that affect her own family, it is nowhere near the scope of what a CEO does on a daily basis.

The typical mother puts in a 92-hour work week, it said, working 40 hours at base pay and 52 hours overtime.

Such a ridiculously inflated estimate would only be accurate if you count watching Soap Operas and Oprah, gossiping with friends on the phone, shopping, carousing at Starbucks or supervising the illegal immigrant housekeeper...

A mother who holds full-time job outside the home would earn an additional $85,939 for the work she does at home, Salary.com.

IF she focused on attaining the degree and experience for ONE of those so-called "jobs" for a career profession for an extended period of time...like being a professional psychologist or cook for a fancy restaurant. Other than that...can anyone name for me where they can make 85 thousand a year as a housekeeper, day care center teacher, laundry machine operator, van driver, facilities manager, or janitor? Because if such jobs exist, I'd quit my current white collar job for one of those in a heart beat!

Salary.com compiled the online responses of 26,000 stay-at-home mothers and 14,000 mothers who also work outside the home.

AHA! Now we KNOW why we get such superficial, artificially inflated crap like the so-called results we have in this "News Story" that is really nothing more than feminist propaganda. They asked women themselves what "job titles" they have for their work in the home - which is where we get such asinine and inflated job titles like "computer operator." Why not "Director of Human Resources" for giving their kids allowance and "Fashion Consultant" for dressing the kids for school? How about "Art Critic" and "Interior Designer?" Why then we could say stay at home mothers should be making 1 million dollars a year!

The true fact of the matter is really this: having a stay at home mother committed to raising her children and creating a happy environment for her family to raise the next generation of healthy, productive citizens is PRICELESS.

But the aims of the feminist-sympathizing Reuters in releasing this propaganda is further continuation of the subversion of traditional culture by disenchanting stay-at-home mothers to make them feel underapprecieated so that they divorce their "oppressive" and "exploitative" husbands, abandon their kids in day-care, and enter the workforce to get paid their "value."

It's purposeful and malicious lies promulgated to sow the seeds of dissatisfaction and disenchantment in the minds of women who are the greatest threat to the feminist movement: the example of fulfilled Mothers that enjoy the opportunity to stay at home and raise their children while being supported by bread-winning Fathers - the very structure of the "Patriarchal" nuclear family.

This "news story" is really just another piece of evidence that the mainstream media in the Western Society is really nothing more than liberal biased outlets meant to disseminate socialist-feminist propaganda and influence the masses of useful idiots to further their goal of re-shaping society by destroying it's foundation - the nuclear family.

August 11th 2007 Robert Pedersen and Rob Mackenzie will start their over 600 mile bicycle trek from the Lansing Capitol to Washington, D.C.. This will be an intense multi-day bike trek through numerous states ending in Washington, D.C. where they will be greeted by thousands of people attending the national rally in Washington, D.C. on August the 18th.

The Bringing Children and Families Back Togetherrally on the national mall is an attempt to highlight and raise public consciousness of the disaster wrought by the feminist movements machinations to drive Fathers out of the family and marginalize their roles in their children's lives.